A1
A2
B
Biblical Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s had to be talking about a Roman Son of Man in accordance with the revealed parable of the wicked tenants. Jesus told his disciples he was going to Jerusalem to suffer rejection, a killing, and a resurrection but that resurrection would not overturn the parable of the wicked tenants–the Holy Land will not revert back from the Gentiles to the Jews.
The author of the Gospel of Mark is letting readers know the Son of Man is not Jesus, but a Roman.
The Gospel of Mark with a Son of Man in the glory of having won the victory of armies surrounding Jerusalem
and after Vespasian became Emperor is telling us Jesus and the martyr Stephen were talking about a Gentile Son of Man standing victorious after the armies surrounded Jerusalem. After Rome wins the Battle of Galilee, the handwriting is on the wall for the author of Gospel of Mark who will have the glory of victory and what some who were alive during the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus would see.
So, it is immature and wrong to interpret the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus as Jesus’ victory: you may arrest me and turn me over to Rome for execution but I will be vindicated and you will see me vindicated before you die, some of you. You will be judged guilty for the outcome of your scheming to have me killed.
The high priest is not sad for the retribution due him and the Sanhedrin at large from the Son of Man, Son of the Blessed One. He is sad that his plotting ends any possibility that Jewish Apocalypticism which gave people hope that their god was a Savior god, not a god who “punishes” them harshly even when they are not disobedient. The high priest is sad because the “punishment” of loss will happen again with more people losing faith.
And many people did lose faith when the Temple was destroyed.
Bart D.E.
My view is that the authorities were ticked off that Jesus was preaching a form of Judaism that opposed them and what they stood for (temple cult).
They did not like the fact he was gaining followers, so that in addition to having personal motivation they had political-social motivation not wanting a riot), and so decided to get rid of him.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
That does not address the likely reasons for the high priest crying and ripping his clothes.
It does not address the consistency with Jesus predicting his death and the parable of the wicked tenants where he is killed.
It does not address Christians incorrectly thinking the Sanhedrin had its victory over Jesus but Jesus would have his victory and glory over them when he arrives in glory on the clouds of heaven and whether or not Jesus meant, when he addressed the Sanhedrin, that some would see the Gentile Son of Man coming in Glory, since the author of the Gospel of Mark knew after the Battle of Galilee (year 67) that God gave the Holy Land to the Roman Empire when the Sanhedrin had his son killed.
Ask scholars, churchgoers, students: Why did the high priest cry and rip his clothes when Jesus and Stephen the martyr said they saw a new hierarchy of power?
The son of man was not reverting back to Jesus from a Gentile.
The Son of Man will be standing in glory after the tribulation of armies surrounding Jerusalem.
The kingdom that comes after the tribulation of armies surrounding Jerusalem will be the kingdom of the Son of Man.
General Titus stood in triumph and glory after the tribulation of armies surrounding Jerusalem.
The Roman Empire stood in triumph and glory after the tribulation of armies surrounding Jerusalem.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)